Anda di halaman 1dari 15

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF MARILAO Third Judicial Region Province of Bulacan GLOBAL

ASIA FINANCE AND LEASING CORPORATION, Plaintiff, -versusSPOUSES ULIETO AND SUSAN AMADOR AND ALL PERSONS CLAIMING RIG!TS UNDER T!EM, Defen"ants# x x Civil Case N$# %&'( Unla)ful Detainer

ANSWER
*+IT! COUNTER-CLAIM, Defendants Spouses Julieto and Susan Amador , by counsel unto this Honorable Court, by way of special appearance without submitting to the jurisdiction of this Court, most respectfully submits the foregoing Answer with Counter-claim and in support thereto, alleges that:

!he allegations in paragraph 1 of the "laintiff#s Complaint that are

personal to the "laintiff are specifically D$%&$D for lac' of sufficient 'nowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity thereof, while the allegations in paragraph ( insofar as they refer to the personal circumstances of S"S )*+&$!, and S*SA% A-AD,., are AD-&!!$D/

!he allegations contained in paragraphs 0, 1, 2, 3, and 14 of the

same Complaint are li'ewise AD-&!!$D/

!he allegations contained in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 1( of the

Complaint are also specifically D$%&$D for the truth of the matter is hereby alleged in the Special and Affirmati7e Defenses raised in the instant Answer/

!he

allegations

contained

in

paragraph

5,

with

regard

to

relin8uishment of title o7er the subject lots by 7irtue of the alleged e9ecution of the :oluntary Surrender and Deeds of Absolute Sale, is also specifically denied for being *%;,*%D$D !he truth being that the Defendants did not 7oluntarily and ha7e no intention of relin8uishing title o7er the abo7e properties and that the due e9ecution of both the :oluntary Surrender and Deeds of Absolute Sale is specifically denied being procured through e7ident fraud, machinations, and bad faith /

!he allegations contained in paragraph < with respect to the demand

letter dated -arch 5, (446 is also specifically D$%&$D for lac' of 'nowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations

SPECIAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Answering Defendant hereby re-pleads and reproduces all the

material allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs, and in support thereof most respectfully alleges that:

!he Honorable Court has no jurisdiction o7er the subject matter of

the claim =ased on the allegations of the Complaint, Accion "ubliciana is the proper action in this case which falls within the jurisdiction of the .egional !rial Court and not unlawful detainer as filed by the plaintiff/

"

&n this jurisdiction, the three 'inds of actions for the reco7ery of

possession of real property are:

Accion interdictal, or an ejectment proceeding which

may be either that for forcible entry (detentacion) or unlawful detainer (desahucio), which is a summary action for reco7ery of physical possession where the dispossession has not lasted for more than one year, and should be brought in the proper inferior court/

Accion publiciana or the plenary action for the

reco7ery of the real right of possession, which should be brought in the proper .egional !rial Court when the dispossession has lasted for more than one year/ and

Accion reinvindicatoria or accion de reivindicacion,

which is an action for the reco7ery of ownership which must be brought in the proper .egional !rial Court

<

!here are two distinctions between the summary ejectment suits

>unlawful detainer and forcible entry? and accion publiciana !he first lies in the period within which each one can be instituted Actions for unlawful detainer and

forcible entry must be filed within one ear !rom the date "ossession is lost , while an accion publiciana may be filed only a!ter the e#"iration o! that "eriod but within the period prescribed in the statute of limitations !he second distinction in7ol7es jurisdiction An accion publiciana may only be filed with the .!C, while a complaint for unlawful detainer or forcible entry may only be filed with the first le7el courts earlier mentioned/

14

!he instant case is not a $ase !or the re$o%er

o! "h si$al

"ossession &ut a $ase to determine who has the real ri'ht to "ossess the subject properties =ased on the Complaint the right to possess the subject properties in fa7or of the "laintiff arose when Defendants e9ecuted Deeds of Absolute Sale in fa7or of the "laintiff for !ransfer Certificate of !itle %os !-(52644 >-? (Anne# )*+ o! Com"laint, and !-(5264( >-? (Anne# )P+ o! Com"laint,, both dated No%em&er -./ -001/

11

!he real issue in this case is %,! the reco7ery of "H@S&CA+

",SS$SS&,% but the D$!$.-&%A!&,% AH, HAS !H$ .$A+ .&BH! ,; ",SS$SS&,% !he latter being an Accion "ubliciana case is cogniCable and within the jurisdiction of the .egional !rial Court !o determine who has the better real right of possession, it would be more e9hausti7ely 7entilated in the .egional !rial Court/

1(

$jectment proceedings must obser7e jurisdictional re8uirements to

complement their summary nature Among them is the one-year bar within which to bring the suit After the lapse of this period, plaintiffs can no longer a7ail

themsel7es of the summary suits in the -etropolitan !rial Court >-e!C? or the -unicipal !rial Court >-!C?, but must litigate in the .egional !rial Court in an ordinary action to reco7er possession (Lopez vs. David, Jr., G.R. No. 15 1!5, "arch #$, $$!, ! % &'RA 5#5)

10

"laintiff contends that the case is one of unlawful detainer since the

one-year bar within which to bring the suit has been complied since their last demand letter was on )uly 5, (446 and their filing was on ;ebruary 15, (44< which is less than a year since its last demand letter/

11

=ut this Honorable Court must consider that the length of time that

the plaintiff was allegedly dispossessed of its property made its cause of action beyond the ambit of an accion interdictal and effecti7ely made it one for accion publiciana(

12

Aell-settled is the rule that the jurisdiction of the court and the nature

of the action are determined by the a7erments in the complaint !o gi7e the court jurisdiction to effect the ejectment of an occupant or a deforciant from the land, it is necessary that the complaint should embody a statement of facts that brings the party clearly within the class of cases for which the statutes pro7ide a remedy, as these proceedings are summary in nature ,n its face, the complaint must show enough ground for the court to assume jurisdiction without resort to parol testimony (&ar)iento vs. 'A, # $ *hil 1!%,15#, Nove)ber 1%, 1++5)

13

"ertinent allegations in the plaintiff#s complaint show that the instant

case is not a case for the reco7ery of physical possession but a case to determine who has the real right to possess the subject properties =ased on the Complaint the right to possess the subject properties in fa7or of the "laintiff arose when Defendants e9ecuted Deeds of Absolute Sale in fa7or of the "laintiff for !ransfer Certificate of !itle %os !-(52644 >-? (Anne# )*+ o! Com"laint, and !-(5264( >-? (Anne# )P+ o! Com"laint,, both dated No%em&er -./ -001 stated in the plaintiff#s complaint as follows: !his is clearly

,-. ./ 0a/ o1 co)pro)ise and settle)ent o1 the said loans, de1endants had 2ust relin3uished title and o0nership over the above properties covered b/ 4'4 N5. 46 -57$$ (") and 4'4 No. 46 -57$ , includin8 their i)prove)ents, as pa/)ent o1 the a1oresaid )onetar/ obli8ations, and e9ecuted docu)ents on Nove)ber +, $$-, deno)inated as :oluntar/ &urrender and Deeds o1 Absolute &ale. 4he copies o1 the said docu)ents are here0ith attached as Anne9es ,"; and ,N; 1or :oluntar/ &urrender, and Anne9es ,5; and ,*; 1or Deeds o1 Absolute &ale, and )ade inte8ral parts hereo1(; ,7. 5n Januar/ 1, $$7, the plainti11 sent a letter to the de1endants, cop/ 1urnished their lessees, in1or)in8 the) that by virtue of the

execution of the said documents, Voluntary Surrender and Deeds of Sale over the said real properties mortgaged, the plaintiff was then the rightful owner of the said parcels of land with improvements and entitled to their possession. *lainti11 thus invited the de1endants and their lessees to its o11ice in <uezon 'it/ 1or the e9ecution o1 their respective contracts o1 lease 0ith the plainti11 as the ne0 lessor. 4he said letter 0as i8nored b/ the de1endants and their lessees despite their receipts thereo1. 4he cop/ o1 the said letter is here0ith attached as Anne9 ,5; and )ade an inte8ral part hereo1( (e)phasis supplied);

15

!his fact is also 'nown to the "laintiff as shown in its letter sent to

the Defendants on )anuary (1, (446 (Anne# )2+ o! Com"laint, reproduced below:

1 Januar/ $$7 "r. and "rs. J=L>?45 and &=&AN A"AD5R @ 55 4iba8an &t. &ta. Rosa >>, "arilao .ulacan Dear &irA"ada)B *ursuant to the Deed o1 &ale 0hich 0e have e9ecuted, dated +, Nove)ber $$-, pertainin8 to the parcels o1 land that /ou have voluntaril/ surrendered to us, located in &ta. Rosa >>, "arilao, .ulacan under the 4rans1er 'erti1icate o1 4itle Nos. 46 -57$$ (") and 46 -57$ ("), please be informed that effective the said date of execution, Global Asia Finance and easing !orporation is the rightful owner of the said properties. "n effect, the possession and all interests, rights and participation over the said properties shall be absolutely in favor of our company. >n vie0 o1 this, /ou are hereb/ 8iven the option to lease the said properties to us as 0ell as /our present tenants 0hich /ou are hereb/ invited to our o11ice 1or the si8nin8 o1 /our respective 'ontract o1 Lease 0ithin 1ive (5) da/s 1ro) receipt hereo1 (e)phasis supplied). 4hanC /ou ver/ )uch. :er/ trul/ /ours, &i8ned J?&&>'A D. 'DAN *resident

16

&t is 7ery clear in the abo7e allegations in the complaint and letter

that after the e9ecution of the Deeds of Sale dated -. No%em&er -001, the plaintiff asserted its right to possess the subject properties, which the plaintiff claimed to be its own .ecords show that the instant case was filed on Fe&ruar 31/ -00.4 ,b7iously, the period between %o7ember (<, (445 to ;ebruary 15, (44<

&

is more than one >1? year !he length of time that the plaintiff was dispossessed of its property made its cause of action beyond the ambit of an accion interdictal and effecti7ely made it one for accion publiciana. A1ter the lapse o1 the one6/ear period, the suit )ust be co))enced in the Re8ional 4rial 'ourt via an accion publiciana 0hich is a suit 1or recover/ o1 the ri8ht to possess. !he instant case is an ordinary ci7il proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of title Accordingly, this Honorable Court has no jurisdiction o7er the subject matter of the claim, and the subject complaint should be dismissed

1<

=ased on the foregoing discussion, it is of no moment that the

"laintiff#s last demand letter to pay and 7acate was on )uly 5, (446 (Anne# )S+ o! Com"laint, ma'ing the filing of the case within one year from the date of last demand to 7acate Ahat counts is the fact that since %o7ember (<, (445, the alleged date of e9ecution of the deeds of absolute sale, the alleged right to possess arose thereby ma'ing the filing of the complaint on ;ebruary 15, (44< more than the prescribed limit of one >1? year and thus, the proper action is this case accion publiciana which jurisdiction lies in the .egional !rial Court

(4

!he Supreme Court ruling in the case of $ncarnacion 7s Amigo

>B . %o 13<5<0, September 12, (443, 24( SC.A 15(? is illuminating as follows:
)#hile it is true that the demand letter was received by the respondent on February $%, %&&$, thereby ma'ing the filing of the complaint for e(ectment fall within the re)uisite one year from last demand for complaints for unlawful detainer, it is also e)ually true that petitioner became the owner of the sub(ect lot in $**+ and has been since that time deprived possession of a portion thereof. From the date of the petitioner,s dispossession in $**+ up to his filing of his complaint for e(ectment in %&&$, almost - years have elapsed. .he length of time that the petitioner was dispossessed of his property made his cause of action beyond the ambit of an accion interdictal and effectively made it one for accion publiciana. After the lapse of the one/year period, the suit must be commenced in the 0egional .rial !ourt via an accion publiciana which is a suit for recovery of the right to possess. "t is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of

'

realty independently of title. "t also refers to an e(ectment suit filed after the expiration of one year from the accrual of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty 1emphasis supplied2.3

(1

!he case of :ictoriano - $ncarnacion 7s %ie7es Amigo, is in all

fours of the instant case A cursory reading of the aforesaid case will show that the ruling of the Supreme Court is applicably e9tant in the case at bar as discussed in the following comparison: (3, 5oth alle'ed in their "leadin's to ha%e a$6uired ownershi" & %irtue o! a $ontra$t7 &n $ncarnacion 7s Amigo the High Court said ,Ero) the alle8ations in the co)plaint, it appears that the petitioner beca)e the o0ner o1 the propert/ on April 11, 1++5 b/ virtue o1 the 0aiver o1 ri8hts e9ecuted b/ his )other6in6la0; &n the instant case the plaintiff alleged in its complaint that it became the owner of the subject properties by 7irtue of the :oluntary Surrender and Deeds of Absolute Sale e9ecuted by the defendants on %o7ember (<, (445 >paragraph 5 of the Complaint? (-, 5oth !iled the e8e$tment $ase within a ear a!ter the last demand letter to %a$ate4 &n $ncarnacion 7s Amigo the Supreme Court stated ,De 1iled the co)plaint 1or e2ect)ent on "arch , $$1 a1ter his Eebruar/ 1, $$1 letter to the respondent de)andin8 that the latter vacate the pre)ises re)ained unheeded;. &n the instant case the plaintiff filed the complaint for ejectment on ;ebruary 15, (44< after its )uly 5, (446 letter to the defendants demanding them to pay and 7acate the premises (9, 5oth !iled the e8e$tment $ase a!ter the la"se o! one: ear "eriod !rom the de"ri%ation o! "ossession o! the "ro"erties in%ol%ed4 &n $ncarnacion 7s Amigo the High Court stated ,Ero) the date o1 the petitionerFs dispossession in 1++5 up to his 1ilin8 o1 his co)plaint 1or e2ect)ent in $$1, al)ost % /ears have elapsed. &n the instant case the plaintiff filed the complaint for ejectment on ;ebruary 15, (44< after the lapse of more than one year when it claimed the right of possession by

7irtue of the deeds of absolute sale e9ecuted on %o7ember (<, (445 ,b7iously, from %o7ember (<, (445 to the date of filing of complaint on ;ebruary 15, (44<, more than a year has already elapsed (( !he issue of ownership must be passed upon by the Honorable

Court since the 8uestion of possession cannot be resol7ed without deciding the issue of ownership Section 13, .ule 54 of the .e7ised .ules of Court pro7ides as follows:
&?'. 1%. Resolvin8 de1ense o1 o0nership. G Hhen the de1endant raises the de1ense o1 o0nership in his pleadin8s and the 3uestion o1 possession cannot be resolved 0ithout decidin8 the issue o1 o0nership, the issue o1 o0nership shall be resolved onl/ to deter)ine the issue o1 possession.

(0

Plainti!!;s &asis o! its ri'ht to "ossess is the deeds o! a&solute

sale e#e$uted & the de!endants in !a%or o! the Plainti!! for !ransfer Certificate of !itle %os !-(52644 >-? (Anne# )*+ o! Com"laint, and !-(5264( >-? (Anne# )P+ o! Com"laint,, both dated No%em&er -./ -001 "laintiff alleged that by 7irtue of the deeds of sale e9ecuted by the defendants, the properties are already its own Defendants claim and firmly assert that they are still the owners of the subject properties since the aforesaid deeds of sale were procured by the "laintiff by fraud, deceit and in contra7ention with e9isting laws Defendants were tric'ed by "lantiff#s personnel namely :ic -on A -usni and )o-Ann Barcia

Defendants recalled that for more than a month, plaintiff#s personnel 'eep on returning to their home to con7ince them to sign the deed of sale which according to the plaintiff will stop the interest !hey were not told that the documents they will sign will already di7est them of ownership o7er the said parcels of land !hey were only told that by signing, the interest will stop and if they will not sign, the plaintiff will padloc' their properties =ecause of their trust to the plaintiff and fear of losing their properties, defendants were con7inced to sign said deeds of absolute sale but it is not their intention to sell the subject property considering that its 7alue is worth more than !hree >0? -illion in contrast with the amount of consideration in

)*

the two deeds of sales totaling only to less than a million peso Defendants are also wondering why the said documents, the :oluntary Surrender and the Deeds of Sale were notariCed by Atty Al8uin = -anguera where in fact when they signed the said documents they were not before the presence of a %otary "ublic specifically Atty Al8uin = -anguera whom they do not 'now and did not see e7en once/

(1

Defendants by counsel to protect their rights sent demand letters to

the "laintiff to cancel or rescind the subject deeds of absolute sale A machine copy of said demand letter together with its +=C receipt are hereto attached as Anne# )A+ and )A:3+ respecti7ely and made integral parts hereof/

(2

Defendants ha7e also sent demand letter to the "laintiff#s counsel to

rectify his act in notariCing the said deeds of absolute sale without the defendants# presence A machine copy of said demand letter together with its +=C receipt are hereto attached as Anne# )5+ and )5:3+ respecti7ely and li'ewise made integral parts hereof/

(3

-oreo7er, based on the allegations of the Complaint, the subject

properties were mortgaged by the defendants to the plaintiff to secure a loan !he act of plaintiff as'ing the defendants to sign a Voluntar Surrender (Anne#es

)M+ and )N+ o! Com"laint, and abo7esaid deeds of absolute sale by 7irtue of the stipulation in the Promissor Notes (Anne#es )A+ and )C+ o! Com"laint, is in the nature of pactum commissorium which is prohibited by law/ (5 "laintiff may argue that contracts ha7e the force of law between the

contracting parties and must be complied with in good faith but there are, howe7er, certain e9ceptions to the rule, specifically Article 1043 of the Ci7il Code, which pro7ides:

))

Art. 1#$%. 4he contractin8 parties )a/ establish such stipulations, clauses, ter)s and conditions as the/ )a/ dee) convenient, provided the/ are not contrar/ to la0, )orals, 8ood custo)s, public order, or public polic/.

(6

A scrutiny of the allegations in the Complaint re7eals a subtle

intention of the creditor to ac8uire the property gi7en as security for the loan !his is embraced in the concept of pactu) co))issoriu), which is proscribed by law
>Art (466, Ci7il Code !he creditor cannot appropriate the things gi7en by way of pledge or mortgage, or dispose of them Any stipulation to the contrary is null and 7oid?/

(<

!he elements of pactu) co))issoriu) are as follows: >1? there

should be a property mortgaged by way of security for the payment of the principal obligation, and >(? there should be a stipulation for automatic appropriation by the creditor of the thing mortgaged in case of non-payment of the principal obligation within the stipulated period >De7elopment =an' of the "hilippines 7s Court of Appeals,
(61 SC.A 11, (3 >1<<6?, citin8 !olentino, Arturo - , Commentaries D )urisprudence on the Ci7il Code of the "hilippines, :ol :, pp 203-205 >1<<(?, citin8 *y !ong 7s Court of Appeals, 131 SC.A 060 >1<66?/

04

A significant tas' in contract interpretation is the ascertainment of the

intention of the parties and loo'ing into the words used by the parties to project that intention &n this case, the intent to appropriate the property gi7en as collateral in fa7or of the creditor appears to be e7ident, for the debtor is obliged to dispose of the collateral at the pre-agreed consideration amounting to practically the same amount as the loan &n effect, the creditor ac8uires the collateral in the e7ent of non payment of the loan !his is within the concept of pactu) co))issoriu) Such stipulation is 7oid >Art ((46, Ci7il Code, 8uoted abo7e?/

01

Defendants are of the belief that what transpired between them of

the plaintiff specifically the e9ecution of 7oluntary surrender and the deeds of sale

)!

is against the law, specifically the doctrine in contracts of loan E the ,pactu) co))issoriu);(

0(

!he "romissory %otes >Anne9es FAG and FCG of Complaint? did not

directly state that there will be an automatic appropriation but the wordings herein is the e8ui7alent of the same and that fact was the one actually happened in the instant case

00

!he last paragraph of the "romissory %ote states: , 4he pa/)ents in

install)ents are accepted based on the above enu)erated postdated checCs. >n the event an/ o1 the above postdated checCs is re2ected or dishonored b/ the banC, >AHe hereb/ allo0 the "5R4GAG?? to repossessA1oreclose the collateral covered b/ this pro)issor/ note, and >AH? obli8ate )/sel1Aourselves to voluntarily surrender the same, 0ithout pre2udice to an/ a)icable settle)ent that )a/ be a8reed upon bet0een )eAus and the "5R4GAG??. &t is clear that this pro7ision is in the nature of pactu) co))issoriu). &t is true that the e9ecution of the :oluntary Surrender and the "romissory %otes and Deeds of Sale were not simultaneous but what was actually happened and the result of the e9ecution of these contracts is the e7il sought to be a7oided by the doctrine of pactu) co))issoriu) E the automatic appropriation of the realty in fa7or of the -ortgagee

01

"laintiff of course might argue that what they did is legal within the

concept of the law on contract but the manner they were able to procure said contracts in fa7or of them is manifestly done thru fraud and deceit which is against morals, public policy and not within the tenets of justice and fair play

02

=ased on the foregoing, the right of possession by the plaintiff

anchored on the aforesaid deeds of absolute sale has no leg to stand on, hence, it

)"

is still the Defendants who ha7e the better right to possess the subject realty and accordingly, the instant case should be dismissed !his is in addition to the fact that the case is one of Accion publiciana which is the plenary action in an ordinary proceeding to determine the legal right to possess, independent of title >City of -anila 7s Anselmo, 26 ,B 6(22? It is an a$tion !or the &etter ri'ht to "ossession >Alo 7s .ocamoria, 3 "hil 1<6?

C*<NTER:CLAIM
03 Answering defendant also re-pleads and incorporates herein by

reference, the preceding paragraphs/

05

"laintiff#s bad faith in procuring the :oluntary Surrender and the

Deeds of Absolute Sale o7er the subject properties thru e7ident fraud and machinations, indisputably shows unconscientious ta'ing ad7antage of the Defendants Had the "laintiff respected the right of the Defendants to continue li7ing in a house and lot, their home for so many years, Defendants would not ha7e suffered the mental anguish, wounded feelings and sleepless nights for fear of being di7ested not only of a home for their family but also their way of life/

06

Defendants, ha7ing been made to suffer said feelings caused by

"laintiff#s bad faith, fraud, and machination, should be compensated for their sufferings in the amount of ;ifty !housand "esos >"hp 24,444 44?/

0<

!o pre7ent others from emulating the bad e9ample of "laintiff, it

should be made to pay e9emplary or correcti7e damages in the amount of !wenty !housand "esos >"hp (4,444 44?/

14

As a conse8uence of "laintiff#s bad faith and mischie7ous acts,

Defendants herein were constrained to engage the ser7ices of the undersigned

)#

counsel for his defense and for which he bound himself to pay the sum of !wenty !housand "esos >"hp(4,444 44? by way of attorney#s fees plus !hree !housand "esos >"hp0,444 44? per appearance before this Honorable Court/

11

Deceptis non decipientibus, (ura subveniunt. >!he law helps

persons who are decei7ed and not those decei7ing ? All persons in need of money are liable to enter into contractual relationships whate7er the condition if only to alle7iate their financial burden albeit temporarily Hence, courts are duty bound to e9ercise caution in the interpretation and resolution of contracts lest the lenders de7our the borrowers li'e 7ultures do with their prey

PRA=ER

F*RE>*IN> PREMISES C*NSIDERED, it is most respectfully prayed to this Honorable Court that:

!he instant complaint be dismissed for lac' of jurisdiction o7er the

subject matter of the claim/

"laintiff be ordered to pay the following: a? !he amount of "24,444 44 as moral damages/ b? !he amount of "(4,444 44 as e9emplary damages/ c? !he amount of "(4,444 44 as acceptance fee and "0,444 44 per appearance or by way of and as attorney#s fees/ and d? Cost of suit

Such other reliefs and remedies that this Honorable Court may deem just and e8uitable under the premises are li'ewise prayed for

)$

RESPECTF<LL= S<5MITTED4 HueCon City for -unicipality of -arilao, )uly 3, (44<

THE LAW FIRM OF TALAMPAS & ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Defendants Unit B-8, 2nd Floor, Amina Building Tandang Sora Avenue, Quezon City For the Firm:

R<5EN C4 TALAMPAS/ JR4


"!. %o 1(06211I1 12 4<IHueCon City &=" %o 52(41<I1 12 4<IHueCon City .oll %o 20203 -C+$ Compliance: =A. Admission (445 Cop+ furnished,
ATT-# AL.UIN B# MANGUERA Counsel for the Plaintiff Chua and -ssociates .a/ Office Suite $!' 0o/nto/n Ctr1 Bldg1 $)% 2uintin Paredes St13 Binondo3 Manila

E/PLANATION f$r Servi0e 12 Re3istere" Mail


0ue to lac4 of 5aterial ti5e and available 5anpo/er to personall+ serve a cop+ of the foregoing 5otion on the opposing counsel3 and considering the distance bet/een the office of the undersigned and that of the opposing counsel3 a cop+ thereof /as served via registered 5ail1

Ruben C1 Tala5pas3 Jr1

4ERIFICATION
6e3 S5$uses uliet$ an" Susan A6a"$r 3 both of legal age3 after having been dul+ s/orn in accordance /ith la/3 hereb+ depose and state that /e are the defendants in the instant case and as such3 /e caused the preparation of the foregoing -ns/er3 /hich /e have read3 and /e hereb+ certif+ that the allegations contained therein are true and correct based on our o/n personal 4no/ledge and authentic records on hand1 ULIETO AMADOR -ffiant SUSAN AMADOR -ffiant

SUBSCRIBED AND S+ORN to before 5e this %th da+ of Jul+ !**( in the Cit+ of Manila3 Philippines1 0oc1 7o1 888888889 Page 7o1 88888889 Boo4 7o1 88888889 Series of !**(1